by robc » Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:09 pm
mgl said, "It may be be a simplistic approach, but usually such 'rules' are in Policies and Procedures...or has GM abolished that practice?"
Usually such rules are ... in fact they generally are for every other manufacturer except GM, who has the crappiest manuals on the planet. If you, god-forbid, missed that administrative message, then you just missed what was pretty much the only notice of the policy change.
GM does seem to be setting labor operations to overlap each other more frequently, but all of those changes and claim handling will be wiped out when Global Warranty rolls out in a year. And the FWS might be right about B causing most DSRs/reviews, but I doubt it. Plus poorly run shops will use B a lot, but it wasn't the B that got them in trouble - it was that they are poorly run.
It might just be that is the easiest thing for him to ID and chargeback, but a B auth is no more an influence than over repairs. AWARE measures B auths along with a few dozen other things, but I do not believe it measures B when it is applied unneccesarily. I tested this theory about a year ago by submitting a lot of unnecessary B auths. Besides my % of Claims Auth'ed line going up on the DA - nothing else happned. If the FWS knows how the AWARE differential points were accumulated as for an accounting of them - how many were from B auths, how many from other factors.
== Rob ==